Autoantibody and metalloproteinase activity in early arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the frequency of anti-mutated citrullinated vimentin antibodies (a-Sa), anti-citrullinated α-enolase peptide 1 antibodies (a-CEP-1), anti-filaggrin antibodies (AFAs), heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein compies/anti-RA33-antibodies (a-hnRNP/RA33), anti-carbamylated protein antibodies (a-CarP), and metalloproteinase (MMPs) activity in patients with early inflammatory arthritis (EIA). METHODS: Seventy-four patients with EIA: 51 diagnosed with RA (rheumatoid arthritis) and 23 with UA (undifferentiated arthritis), and 20 healthy volunteers were enrolled to the study. Inflammatory markers, rheumatoid factor (RF), and antibodies mentioned above were assessed in all patients. RESULTS: In the EIA group, we observed significantly higher concentration of a-CEP-1 (65.8 ± 111.6 RU/mL) than in controls (2.0 ± 0.0 RU/mL). In RF(+) RA patients, we observed higher concentration of a-Sa and a-CEP-1 than in other groups. A-Sa were positive in 69% of RF(+) RA, 37% of RF(-) RA, 26% of UA patients and in 10% of controls. A-CEP-1 were positive in 77% of RF(+) RA patients, in 56% of RF(-) RA patients, in 8.7% of UA patients, but they were negative in controls. In patients with RF(+) RA, positive a-CarP were present statistically significantly more often than in RF (-) RA patients. No statistically significant difference in frequency of a-hnRNP/RA33 and AFA between RF(+) RA, RF(-) RA, and UA was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a-CEP-1 may help in differentiation between RF(-) RA and UA. a-CEP-1 and a-Sa may be useful while diagnosing EIA. a-CarP may be used in differentiation of RA RF(-) and UA. However, a follow-up study is needed to evaluate the prognostic value of analyzed antibodies.

Reported concepts for the treatment modalities and pain management of temporomandibular disorders.

BACKGROUND: Pain related to temporomandibular disorders (TMD) is a common problem in modern societies. The aim of the article is to present the concepts of TMD pain clinical management. METHODS: A survey was performed using the PubMed, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases for documents published between 1994 and 2014. The following search keywords were selected using MeSH terms of the National Library of Medicine in combination: TMD pain, TMD, TMJ, TMJ disorders, occlusal splint, TMD physiotherapy, TMJ rheumatoid disorders and TMJ surgery. Original articles and review papers which presented the clinical relevance and practical validity regarding the possibility of application in TMD management have been included. Authors have excluded articles without outstanding practical aspect and evidence-based background. A first selection was carried out by reviewing titles and abstracts of all articles found according to the criteria. After that the full texts of potentially suitable articles were assessed. In line with these criteria, among 11467 results the writers have included 66 papers. RESULTS: The most commonly reported conservative treatments are massage therapy and individually fabricated occlusal splints. In addition to massage, other popular methods include manual therapy and taping, warming/cooling of aching joints, and light and laser therapy. Drugs are also commonly used. In the most severe cases of the temporomandibular joint degeneration, surgical restoration of the joint is sometimes applied. CONCLUSIONS: The authors concluded that conservative treatment including counselling, exercises, occlusal splint therapy, massage, manual therapy and others should be considered as a first choice therapy for TMD pain because of their low risk of side effects. In the case of severe acute pain or chronic pain resulting from serious disorders, inflammation and/or degeneration pharmacotherapy, minimally invasive and invasive procedures should be considered.

Biological therapy in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: issues in Central and Eastern European countries.

Biological drugs revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Access to treatment presents substantial variability across Europe. The economic level of a particular country as well as administrative restrictions have been proved as determining factors of biological drug uptake. The objective of this paper was to provide an overview of biological treatment in six selected Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, namely in the Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. The literature is summarized with regard to the epidemiology, disease burden and use of biological agents in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Moreover, an estimate is provided on the prevalence and number of patients with biological treatment based on international and local sources. In view of the limited availability of information and uncertainty in data, there is an urgent need for development of systematic and comprehensive data collection in inflammatory rheumatic diseases in CEE countries.

Access to biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess and compare patients' access to biologic anti-RA drugs in selected Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries and to analyze the determinants of differences between countries. MATERIAL/METHODS: This is a multi-country survey study, based on a combination of desk research and direct contact with national RA stakeholders. Data was collected using a pre-defined questionnaire. Affordability was measured using an affordability index, calculated comparing the index of health care expenditures to the price index, using Poland as an index of 1. RESULTS: The percentage of patients on biologic treatment in 2009 was highest in Hungary (5% RA patients on biologic treatment), followed by Slovenia (4.5%), Slovakia (3.5%), Czech Republic (2.92%), Romania (2.2%), Estonia (1.8%), and Croatia, Serbia, Poland (below 1.5%). Infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab were included in the reimbursement system in all countries, but abatacept and tocilizumab were included only in Slovakia. In Slovenia, public payer covered 75% of the price, and 25% is covered by supplementary health insurance; in Bulgaria public payer covered 50% of etanercept and adalimumab costs, and 75% of rituximab cost. In other countries, biologic drugs are reimbursed at 100%. Affordability index for biologic drugs was the lowest in Slovenia (0.4). In each country national guidelines define which patients are eligible for biologic treatment. Disease Activity Score (DAS28) of over 5.1 and failure of 2 or more disease-modifying anti-RA drugs, including methotrexate, are commonly used criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The most important factors limiting access to biologic anti-RA treatment in the CEE region are macroeconomic conditions and restrictive treatment guidelines.